4154 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Laurens County line; then northwest

along the Spartanburg/Laurens County

line to the Spartanburg/Greenville

County line; then northwest and north

along the Spartanburg/Greenville

County line to the point of beginning.

* * * * *

York County. The entire county.

Tennessee

Bradley County. The entire county.

Chester County. The entire county.

Decatur County. That portion of the

county lying south of State Highway

100.

Fayette County. That portion of the

county lying south of U.S. Highway 64.

That portion of the county lying east of

State Highway 76.

Franklin County. That portion of the

county lying south of latitude 35°5′.

Giles County. That portion of the

county lying south of U.S. Highway 64.

Hamilton County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Henderson County. That portion of

the county lying south of State Highway

100.

Lawrence County. That portion of the

county lying south of U.S. Highway 64.

Lincoln County. That portion of the

county lying south of latitude 35°5′.

Marion County. That portion of the

county lying south of latitude 35°10′.

McMinn County. That portion of the

county lying south of latitude 35°20′.

* * * * *

Polk County. The entire county.

Shelby County. That portion of the

county lying south of latitude 35° 13′.

Wayne County. The entire county.

Texas

* * * * *

Brown County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Ector County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Hidalgo County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Jones County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Kimble County. The entire county.

* * * * *

La Salle County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Maverick County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Midland County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Palo Pinto County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Red River County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Stephens County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Val Verde County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Willacy County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

January 1998.

Joan M. Arnoldi,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–2050 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–ANE–44; Amendment 39–

10291; AD 98–02–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Certain

Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 Series

Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Textron Lycoming

320 and 360 series reciprocating

engines, that requires visual inspections

of the inside diameter (ID) of the

crankshaft for corrosion pits, and if

corrosion pits are found during this

inspection, prior to further flight,

performing a magnetic particle

inspection (MPI) or fluorescent

penetrant inspection (FPI) of the ID for

cracks. In addition, this AD requires

reporting findings of inspections to the

FAA. Finally, terminating action to the

inspections of this AD is the application

of a preventive treatment coating on

non-corroded crankshafts to prevent

corrosion. This amendment is prompted

by reports of cracks in crankshafts

originating from corrosion pits in the ID.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent crankshaft failure,

which can result in engine failure,

propeller separation, forced landing,

and possible damage to the aircraft.

DATES: Effective March 30, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of March 30,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Textron Lycoming, 652 Oliver St.,

Williamsport, PA 17701; telephone

(717) 327–7080, fax (717) 327–7100.

This information may be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), New England Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rocco Viselli or Raymond Reinhardt ,

Aerospace Engineers, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St.,

Valley Stream, NY 11581–1200;

telephone (516) 256–7531 , fax (516)

568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 18, 1993, the Civil Aviation

Authority (CAA), which is the

airworthiness authority of the United

Kingdom (UK), received a report that a

Piper PA–28–161 aircraft, with a

Textron Lycoming O–320–D3G

reciprocating engine installed, executed

a forced landing due to an engine

crankshaft failure which caused the

propeller to separate from the aircraft.

The cause of the crankshaft failure was

determined to be due to a high cycle

fatigue mechanism that had initiated

from a number of corrosion pits in the

crankshaft bore. After the cracks had

progressed through a substantial

proportion of the crankshaft section, the

rate of advance had increased until the

remaining unseparated portion had

failed as a result of overload. The

cracking occurred in high cycle fatigue

and it had progressed over an extended

period of service. At the time of the

accident the engine had operated for

1,950 hours time in service (TIS) since

overhaul and had accumulated 4,429

hours total time since new over a period

of 16 years. In addition, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has

confirmed that four other failures in the

United States and 10 in foreign

countries were due to cracks initiating

from corrosion pits in the crankshaft

bore on certain Textron Lycoming 320

and 360 reciprocating engines with

ratings of 160 horsepower or greater. Of

the 10 failures in foreign countries, four

resulted in the propeller separating from

the aircraft inflight. Three of these four

were from 1993 to 1996. The FAA

utilized metallurgical failure analysis

reports and other information to

conclude that these failures were due to

cracks originating from corrosion pits.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in crankshaft failure, which can

result in engine failure, propeller

separation, forced landing, and possible

damage to the aircraft.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4155

apply to Textron Lycoming 235 Series

and 290 Series, and certain 320 and 360

series reciprocating engines, was

published in the Federal Register on

November 28, 1995 (60 FR 58580); the

comment period was reopened in a

reprinting of the original proposal on

April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15430). That action

proposed to require initial and

repetitive inspections of the crankshaft

inside diameter (ID) for corrosion and

cracks, and replacement of cracked

crankshafts with a serviceable part. In

addition, the proposed AD would have

permitted operation of engines with

crankshafts that were found to have

corrosion pits but were free of cracks

provided repetitive inspections were

performed until the next engine

overhaul or 5 years after the initial

inspection, whichever occurred first, at

which time the proposed AD would

have required those crankshafts with

corrosion pits but no cracks to be

replaced. Those proposed actions would

be performed in accordance with

Textron Lycoming Mandatory Service

Bulletin (MSB) No. 505A, dated October

18, 1994.

The FAA had determined that

fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPI)

were warranted if corrosion pits were

found. The FPI inspection program was

developed due to reports from Textron

Lycoming and other approved repair

stations that most of the crankshafts that

are pitted do not contain cracks. The

FAA determined that visual inspections

alone were not sufficient to detect a

crack. The FPI inspection was based on

crack propagation data developed by the

FAA in conjunction with Textron

Lycoming and with consideration of the

technical base in the U.S. for performing

nondestructive inspections. The FPI

process was shown to be reliable for

detection of cracks down to 0.050

inches in depth and 0.100 inches in

length. The FPI inspection interval was

based on the crack propagation data

such that a crack could be reliably

detected before the crankshaft failed. If

an installed engine was found to have

a pitted crankshaft, the FAA did not

propose to allow the removal of metal

to remove the corrosion pits due to

possible contamination of the engine oil

supply with metal filings and to ensure

that the concentricity of the crankshaft

would not be compromised.

Interested persons were afforded an

opportunity to participate in the making

of this amendment. Over 200 comments

were received in response to the initial

NPRM. In addition, the FAA met with

the Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association (AOPA), Aeronautical

Repair Station Association (ARSA), and

Textron Lycoming to discuss the data

that formed the basis for this action. A

summary of that meeting is contained in

the docket file.

A Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (SNPRM), in response to

the comments, was published in the

Federal Register on January 3, 1997 (62

FR 343). That SNPRM fully addressed

the comments received in response to

the NPRM and the issues raised at the

meeting with AOPA, ARSA, and the

manufacturer. That action proposed to

revise the proposal by limiting the

applicability of the proposed AD to only

certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360

series reciprocating engines, excluding

additional engines installed in

helicopters; permitting any certificated

mechanic holding an airframe or

powerplant rating to perform the FPI;

permitting continued use of a pitted

crankshaft as long as repetitive FPI

inspections are performed; and deleting

the five year limit on the use of

crankshafts that are pitted but not

cracked. Also, the FAA received new

cost information, and revised the

economic analysis with respect to the

initial inspection time, the time to

remove and replace crankshafts, the cost

of the replacement crankshafts, and the

cost for repetitive FPI inspections.

Finally, the revised proposal introduced

a public reporting survey to provide the

FAA with a broader database on the

condition of crankshafts when observed

during the initial inspections.

Twenty-one comments were received

in response to the SNPRM. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Seven commenters state that there

have not been enough crankshaft

failures to justify the AD, that the

proposed actions are too costly, and that

the FAA should acquire more data

before promulgating this rule. The FAA

does not concur. As stated in the

SNPRM, the FAA received data and

studies that substantiated the need for

an AD. These studies and data confirm

the crankshaft fracture occurred at a

stress concentration caused by a

corrosion pit on the inside of the

crankshaft. In addition, since the NPRM

was issued, six additional crankshaft

failures on 160 horsepower Textron

Lycoming engines are being

investigated. The FAA has, however,

performed additional analysis to limit

the population of engines impacted by

this proposed AD and has deleted the

five year limit on pitted crankshafts

undergoing repetitive FPI inspections.

These measures will decrease the cost of

the AD to the public.

Two commenters state that the

corrosion problem is caused by a design

flaw; i.e., the crankshafts should be

solid instead of hollow. The FAA does

not concur. A coating has been

incorporated on the inside bore of new

crankshafts shipped in engines and as

spares from Textron Lycoming since

February 15, 1997. Textron Lycoming

has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 530

dated December 1, 1997, which

describes applying Urethabond 104 as a

protective coating on the inside bore of

the crankshafts. This coating should

only be applied during overhaul due to

the preparation requirement of

degreasing the inside bore prior to the

application of the coating.

One commenter states that a dye

penetrant inspection should be

performed in lieu of the FPI, as it is

more accurate in detecting cracks. The

FAA does not concur. Dye penetrant

actually includes both visible dye and

fluorescent dye penetrant techniques.

Recent use of the term within the

inspector community has limited the

meaning to visible dye penetrant. The

reliability of inspection data available to

the FAA indicates that FPI has a better

probability of detection than visible dye

penetrant (color contrast) inspection.

The preferred dye penetrant inspection

method is the FPI method.

One commenter states that a magnetic

particle inspection (Magnaflux) should

be performed in lieu of the FPI, as it is

more accurate in detecting cracks. The

FAA concurs in part. The magnetic

particle inspection (MPI) is the

preferred method with the shaft

removed from the engine at overhaul.

An FPI should only be performed if the

crankshaft is installed in the engine

such as during an on-wing inspection.

An MPI should not be performed with

the crankshaft installed in the engine

due to the difficulty in obtaining a

suitable magnetic field. In addition, the

residual field effects after the

demagnetization process may have a

harmful effect on the rotating

components in the engine, including the

bearings.

One commenter states that the AD

should take into consideration the

operation and service history for each

engine in specifying corrective action.

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA

has taken into consideration service

history and has limited the applicability

of this AD to engines with 160 hp or

greater. The survey to be completed for

the initial inspection of the crankshaft

may aid the FAA in determining other

causal effects which may be used for

future rulemaking.

Five commenters state that the AD

should require application of a

preventive treatment on the inside bore

of the crankshaft to prevent future

corrosion. The FAA concurs. Textron
4156 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Lycoming has developed a preventive

treatment known as Urethabond 104

and has issued MSB No. 530, dated

December 1, 1997, which describes

procedures for applying this coating.

Crankshafts that are confirmed to have

the letters ‘‘PID’’ stamped on the outside

diameter of the propeller flange (PID

stands for Painted Internal Diameter), do

not require the inspection requirements

of this AD. The application of the

Urethabond 104 coating constitutes

terminating action for the inspection

requirements of this AD.

One commenter states that the FAA

should impose a life limit of 4,000 hours

time in service on all affected

crankshafts. The FAA does not concur.

To date, the FAA has no data from

Textron Lycoming nor from any other

source which would substantiate a

4,000 hour time in service life limit.

Two commenters state the FAA

should distinguish in the AD between

major and minor pitting action. The

FAA does not concur. The FAA has no

data to substantiate taking action for a

minor versus a major pit other than

what is presented in Textron Lycoming

MSB 505B. The survey to be completed

for the initial inspection of the

crankshaft may assist the FAA in

determining a relationship between the

number of pits and the number of

crankshafts cracked. This information

may be used for future rulemaking.

One commenter states that pitted

crankshafts should be replaced at

overhaul. The FAA partially concurs.

Textron Lycoming MSB 505B requires

that the crankshaft be replaced at

overhaul if it is pitted. However, from

the data the FAA has received to date,

many crankshafts are pitted but not

cracked. In addition, the FAA has

received no substantiation from Textron

Lycoming or other sources to justify

replacing a pitted crankshaft at overhaul

as long as it has received an MPI and

has been determined to have no cracks;

and, when the engine is reinstalled in

an aircraft, an FPI is performed every

100 hours TIS to ensure that the

crankshaft is not cracked. The

inspection survey will be utilized by the

FAA to determine the number of

engines under repetitive FPI

inspections, the number of crankshafts

that are found to be cracked, whether

another failure mechanism is

contributing to the crankshaft failures,

and possible adjustment of the

repetitive inspection interval. The

information obtained by this survey may

lead to future rulemaking.

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

described previously. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

The total number of engines impacted

worldwide is 16,357 (11,000, 160 hp,

320 series; and 5,357, 360 Series). The

FAA estimates that 60% of that number,

9,814 engines are installed on aircraft of

U.S. registry, and are affected by this

AD. The FAA estimates that it will take

approximately 8 work hours per engine

to accomplish the initial visual

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour; therefore the

estimated cost impact for the initial

visual inspections would be $4,710,720.

The FAA also estimates, based on

information received from the UK CAA

regarding the number of engines

undergoing repetitive inspections in the

UK due to the UK CAA AD on the same

subject, that 12%, or 1,178, of the

affected engines may contain

crankshafts that require FPI. The FAA

estimates that each FPI will take

approximately 8 hours, and that

operators with corroded crankshafts

may perform one FPI per year. The

estimated cost for the repetitive FPI,

therefore, is $565,286 annually. Lastly,

the FAA estimates that 5 crankshafts

will require replacement per year due to

cracks, and that it will take 38 work

hours per engine to replace cracked

crankshafts. Assuming that a

replacement crankshaft will cost

approximately $6,000 per engine, the

estimated cost for replacement of 5

crankshafts will be $41,400 annually.

Therefore, the total estimated cost

impact of this AD is $5,317,406 for the

first year, and $606,686 each year

thereafter.

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–02–08 Textron Lycoming: Amendment

39–10291. Docket 94–ANE–44.

Applicability: Textron Lycoming 320 series

limited to 160 horsepower, and 360 series,

four cylinder reciprocating engines with

fixed pitch propellers; except for the

following installed in helicopters or with

solid crankshafts: HO–360 series, HIO–360

series, LHIO–360 series, VO–360 series, and

IVO–360 series, and Models O–320–B2C, O–

360–J2A, AEIO–360–B4A, O–360–A4A,

–A4G, –A4J, –A4K, –A4M, and –C4F. In

addition, engines with crankshafts containing

‘‘PID’’ stamped on the outside diameter of the

propeller flange are exempt from the

inspection requirements of this AD. The

affected engines are installed on but not

limited to reciprocating engine powered

aircraft manufactured by Cessna, Piper,

Beech, American Aircraft Corporation,

Grumman American Aviation, Mooney,

Augustair Inc., Maule Aerospace Technology

Corporation, Great Lakes Aircraft Co., and

Commander Aircraft Co.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless

of whether it has been modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (g)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4157

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent crankshaft failure, which can

result in engine failure, propeller separation,

forced landing, and possible damage to the

aircraft, accomplish the following:

(a) For engines shipped new from Textron

Lycoming prior to and including December

31, 1984, and that have never been

overhauled, or any engine remanufactured or

overhauled and that has accumulated 1,000

hours or more time in service (TIS) since

remanufacture or overhaul, visually inspect

the inside diameter (ID) of the crankshaft for

corrosion pits within the next 100 hours TIS

after the effective date of this AD, or 6

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, in accordance with

Textron Lycoming Mandatory Service

Bulletin (MSB) No. 505B, dated December 1,

1997.

(1) If corrosion pits are found during this

inspection, prior to further flight, accomplish

the following:

(i) If the crankshaft is installed in the

engine such as during an on-wing inspection,

perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection

(FPI) in accordance with Textron Lycoming

MSB No. 505B, dated December 1, 1997.

(ii) If the crankshaft is removed from the

engine at overhaul, perform a magnetic

particle inspection (MPI) in accordance with

Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505B, dated

December 1, 1997.

(2) Within 48 hours after these inspections,

report the finding of the inspection in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

(b) For engines shipped new from Textron

Lycoming after December 31, 1984, and that

have never been overhauled, or any engine

remanufactured or overhauled and that has

accumulated less than 1,000 hours TIS since

remanufacture or overhaul, visually inspect

the ID of the crankshaft for corrosion pits, at

the earliest occurrence of any event specified

in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph, and in

accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No.

505B, dated December 1, 1997.

(1) If corrosion pits are found during this

inspection, prior to further flight perform an

FPI or MPI in accordance with Textron

Lycoming MSB No. 505B, dated December 1,

1997.

(2) Within 48 hours after these inspections,

report the finding of the inspection in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

(3) Visually inspect the ID of the crankshaft

for corrosion pits at the earliest of the

following:

(i) The next engine overhaul or

disassembly.

(ii) Within 10 years of the original shipping

date or 6 months from the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later.

(iii) Within 1,000 hours TIS since

remanufacture or overhaul, or 6 months from

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later.

(c) Thereafter, if no corrosion pits or cracks

are found on the ID of the crankshaft during

the initial visual inspection, perform a visual

inspection at intervals not to exceed 5 years

since last inspection, or at the next engine

overhaul or disassembly, whichever occurs

first, in accordance with Textron Lycoming

MSB No. 505B, dated December 1, 1997. If

corrosion pits but no cracks are found on the

ID of the crankshaft during the initial visual

inspection and the ID does not exceed the

maximum ID specified in Textron Lycoming

MSB No. 505B, dated December 1, 1997,

repeat the FPI at intervals not to exceed 100

hours TIS since last FPI or until a serviceable

crankshaft is installed in the engine.

(d) Prior to further flight, remove from

service and replace with a serviceable part

any crankshaft found cracked during FPI or

MPI performed in accordance with Textron

Lycoming MSB No. 505B, dated December 1,

1997.

(e) After accomplishing the initial visual

inspection and, if necessary, the FPI or MPI,

required by this AD, complete Appendix 1 of

this AD and submit to the Manager, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St.,

Valley Stream, NY 11581; fax (516) 568–

2716. Reporting requirements have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget and assigned OMB control number

2120–0056.

Appendix 1

TEXTRON LYCOMING CRANKSHAFT

INSPECTION SURVEY

AD Docket No. 94–ANE–44

Date of Inspection llllllllll

Inspector’s Information

Name llllllllllllllllll

Address llllllllllllllll

State llllll Zip Code llllll

Telephone No. lllllllllllll

Facsimile No. llllllllllllll

Engine Model Number llllllllll

Engine Serial Number (S/N) lllllll

Date of Manufacture lllll (M/D/YR).

Total Time (TT) llll hrs

Time Since Major Overhaul (SMOH)

llll hrs

Crankshaft Part Number (located on prop

flange) llllll S/N llllll

Aircraft Make and Model

lllllllllllllllllllll

Frequency of Flights llllll per month

(average).

Duration llllll hrs per Flight

How was aircraft being utilized? llll

Training, llll Personal, llll

Banner Towing, llll Glider Towing,

llll Agricultural, Other (please

explain) llllllllll

Propeller Make and Model

lllllllllllllllllllll

Has the aircraft ever experienced a propeller

strike during service? llll Yes

llll No

Was propeller ever removed for servicing or

overhaul? llll Yes llll No

If yes, describe reason for removal in detail?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

What was the condition of the crankshaft

internal bore?

Corroded ll Yes ll No. If corroded, how

many pits? ll 1 to 5, ll 6 to 10, ll

More than 10 llllllllll

Was a crack found? ll Yes ll No. If crack

was found, complete the following:

llll Distance from crankshaft end

(Inches) llll Crack Length (Inches)

Comments:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

(f) The application of Urethabond 104 to

the inner bore of the crankshaft and

confirmed by stamping of the letters ‘‘PID’’

on the outside diameter of the propeller

flange in accordance with Textron Lycoming

MSB No. 530, dated December 1, 1997,

constitutes terminating action to the

inspection requirements of this AD.

(g) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, New York

Aircraft Certification Office. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, New York Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the New York

Aircraft Certification Office.

(h) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(i) The actions required by this AD shall be

done in accordance with the following

Textron Lycoming MSB:

Document No. Pages Date

505B ................... 1–5 Dec. 1, 1997.

Total pages ..... 5

530 ..................... 1–2 Dec. 1, 1997.

Total pages ..... 7

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Textron Lycoming, 652 Oliver St.,

Williamsport, PA 17701; telephone (717)

327–7080, fax (717) 327–7100. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, New England Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(j) This amendment becomes effective on

March 30, 1998.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

January 9, 1998.

James C. Jones,

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–1705 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U